I have been involved in high tech, graphic arts, computer software and hardware design for more than 40 years.

I've been blogging about vaping since early 2009.

I work on advanced robot vision, 3D, SONAR, LIDAR, and software technology.

I own my own business.

I have set up this blog to talk about who I am, what I do, and to publish my opinions...

Search This Blog

Thursday, January 31, 2019

Vaperatti: Lawsuit for the Win, Ban Opposition for the Loss

I've been watching the vaperatti jet around the country attempting to strike down "flavor bans."

Seems like a good thing, doesn't it? Perhaps not...

Let's first consider the evils of "sugary soda." Back in June 2015 San Francisco was (according to this WSJ link) "...likening the fight against soda to the old public-policy wars over tobacco, ... city officials unanimously voted Tuesday on a package of ordinances that would make it the first in the U.S. to require health warnings on ads for sugary drinks."

Soda's bad right? Bad for "kids." (But not as bad as JUUL...)

So why not stick big ugly "Danger Will Robison" labels on all the cans and bottles? Save the kiddos from their wicked, inattentive parents, and so forth.

Really, how different is this from labeling 0mg frosting flavoring vape juice as containing nicotine?

Now I have maintained for a while that these labels are illegal, false advertising and dangerous (for example, misleading a poison control center).

Reasonably I see this FDA labeling requirement as equivalent to the "soda" label requirement: you put a label on your product regardless of fact or truth.

Lo and behold today the 9th Circuit, no less, with 11-zip decision said the soda labels violated the First Amendment (see WSJ today or the less enthusiastic SF Examiner article).

Hmmm....

What's the delta here?

Nothing. Zip. Nada.

Factually false labels forced by do gooders onto products.

I wrote "Science Backs the FDA Down (Vaping is Free)" a while back. No US Constitution claim but I believe that I made it so clear the FDA's bogus position that software was a "Tobacco Product" was such nonsense they backed it down (no longer "requiring" the software in your mod to be made of plant leaves).

This is the same thing.

And now the 9th Circuit agrees (opinion here). The opinion is long and interesting.

So, vaperatti, maybe we should consider something like this for the win?

Hell, it's an argument that doesn't even require science to win, especially considering that unlabeled cupcake frosting flavor is already free to do what it may with the same ingredients.

The fact that no one in the vaperatti bothers is really quite troubling...

All the money poured into "ban control" is a waste. Let'm vape dog shit and go for the win.